Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Bevington


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 04:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Bevington

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is nominally a bio of an activist and author, although it's almost entirely a description of his book. There are no independent references and no evidence of substantial coverage by reliable sources, and so no evidence that either the author or the book is at all notable. The article has been tagged as ref-improve for five years and as promotional for three, with no real improvement. I can't find any worthwhile sources about book or author. I don't believe the author satisfies WP:AUTHOR or the book WP:NBOOK. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added a couple of references, based on reviews of his book located via Highbeam, and also removed the long text which described the book rather than the person (and hence also removed the promotional tag). However this still leaves the question whether there is enough to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know anything about either of the journals that you found to opine as to what extent they're reliable or significant. But if folks consider that they are, to the degree that something of this article should be saved, this would suggest that the book rather than the author is the notable one. In that event (which I don't think were at yet) I'd suggest we rename the article to the book's title, cut the author bio down to a line or two, and have as the main body the material about the book that is supported by those journal reviews. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – Unfortunately I don't think either the book or the author is notable enough for a separate article. The books gets few cites on Google Scholar, and most of them are dissertations. What I would suggest is converting it into an article on "Grassroots environmental activism". I've been looking through the hundreds of environmental articles on Wikipedia for a home for this content, and it seems that we don't have an article on strategy. This has been a major topic in the environmental movement since the "failure" of the cap-and-trade bill, which many blamed on the insider strategy of the big environmental groups. There is a wealth of material on that. So this article could be rewritten as first approach to that topic, using mainly the material on the book. Or just delete the article for now, which I am leaning toward, since someone writing an article on this topic is likely to come across the book. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I find Margin1522's suggestion for a page on environment activism to be very generous if someone wishes to take up that challenge. This person's work would possibly be valuable in supporting such an article, even though it doesn't reach notability as a stand-alone entry. LaMona (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quickly fails WP:42 (or WP:GNG, if you prefer) and makes no assertion to the contrary. A grant writer for an environmental company who also wrote a book. I changed my mind: don't delete. Move, to LinkedIn. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.